He's thought to be, but he's also definitely Stern's hand picked successor in a league that is still going to have Stern involved post-retirement. I refuse to get myself too optimistic about Silver beyond him not having the kind of spite for our city that Stern has.

If it's not about being able to leverage for public subsidy, then it doesn't really make sense. How much more money can you make uncontested in a small market than you can in a large one with other teams? I'd bet, overall, you make less. I really don't think the central idea is to run from competition. It's simply the lack of competition that gives them ultimate power of those smaller host cities. "The only game in town is leaving", etc. Seattle is a larger market than OKC by over 2.5x, obviously there were a lot of variables in that situation, but just comparing the two markets, I don't see anyway that OKC makes a more profitable destination based on lack of competition. It's all about the buildings.

Throwdown wrote:Well, Silver is thought of in circles to be a guy who's more for the big time cities as opposed to Stern who was down for the small markets they could bend over.

This. Exactly why I think relocation is the way we get a team also. Silver is all about the big markets, so why expand and keep the small markets when some are flailing? Silver might want to play a little musical chairs with Seattle rather expand.

I don't know if it'll be relocation or expansion, I do believe we will have a team in the next 2 years though.

Milwaukee isn't as easy as people are trying to make it seem, 6 year lease, owner is pretty adamant about not wanting the team to go to an out of towner. Charlotte is about to change their name back to the Hornets, they have a world class arena already, it might just be a case of the Bobcats brand not catching on.

Who else is there? We aren't getting the Pacers, and they aren't going to move a team from Atlanta to Seattle, Memphis just got a new owner who seems committed to to staying there, Minnesota already said no, I'm running out of teams that would be even remotely possible.

Throwdown wrote:I don't know if it'll be relocation or expansion, I do believe we will have a team in the next 2 years though.

Milwaukee isn't as easy as people are trying to make it seem, 6 year lease, owner is pretty adamant about not wanting the team to go to an out of towner. Charlotte is about to change their name back to the Hornets, they have a world class arena already, it might just be a case of the Bobcats brand not catching on.

Who else is there? We aren't getting the Pacers, and they aren't going to move a team from Atlanta to Seattle, Memphis just got a new owner who seems committed to to staying there, Minnesota already said no, I'm running out of teams that would be even remotely possible.

I think the Bucks lease buyout is less than 100 million, which isn't much for HBN. I mean they upped their bid 100 mil and offered 125 million relocation fee. A 100 million buyout is not going to deter HBN.

Now their owner did buy the Bucks in 85 in order to keep them in Milwaukee. BUT, if Chris Hansen comes to town and offers 525 million for a franchise valued at 312 million...that will get anyone to the table. I think it's the Bucks or the Bobcats. I don't care that they are changing their name, it won't work. They don't care about that team. Hell, they have so many better college basketball teams to watch in Carolina.

And to pink, tomato..tomahto. They can leverage more because they're the only game in town. As I'm sure you can tell by my sunny disposition, I'm a glass half-full guy. I choose to believe the intent was genuine, to start.

Ah ah, the original point was that, like Sacramento, Milwaukee has a small number of teams. The NBA doesn't consider the 49ers direct competition when deciding to keep the Kings in Sacramento. Sacramento, to them, is a one-team town. Likewise, the NBA doesn't consider the Packers as direct competition when trying to hold Milwaukee up for an arena that it probably can't afford. The Brewers, on the other hand, sure, but baseball game attendance is down significantly across the board.

It's cute how you are trying to make sense, but try to stay on track, kiddo!

"If given the opportunity without fear of incarceration, I would honestly beat the living **** out of Jerry Rice."

pehawk wrote:Cali being what, the 8th biggest economy in the world, makes it pretty much dissimilar.

Your point was that the NBA likes small markets because they are one horse towns with no competition, the point being made is that there is competition, competition they're often losing to. I don't see how the overall California economy pertains to a discussion about specific markets. The benefit of "no competition" in the way you brought up isn't there in Sacramento, the Kings lose out to 3 other sports teams. It fits into what I was saying, in that the "one horse" pertains more heavily to the civic pride of that being "their" team with their city's name on it, which is used in leverage for buildings, not in an advantageous way to avoid competition with other leagues, because they don't avoid it at all.

They do avoid that though. If they didn't each pro league wouldn't have, what, a minimum of 4 pro teams in the state. California's simply not a good "control" city to compare against, I guess. I do believe that the NBA views Sacramento as a one-horse town, period.

Well it can't be both a "one horse town" to suit your point and then be ignored when looking at nearby competition. If Sacramento is a one horse town when 3 nearby sports teams see larger support, the definition is being stretched to fit specific points, I think. They certainly can't be cited as an example for your point about "competition", then. At that point, being a one horse town would have nothing to do with competing leagues drawing money and interest in a city. Maybe one or two of the other towns are better examples for your point, I'm not as unfortunately aware of their makeup like I am the steaming pile of Sacramento.

Well, yes, I'm sure in Sacrmento there is competition for pro sports dollars.

But, that competition is diluted enough by; number of teams (Raiders or 49ers) and whether they follow it at all. Or, to put it in simpler terms, there's far more DIE HARD Kings fans in Sacramento than there is die hard any other type of fans. Sure, there may be die hard Raiders fans, but not more than the cities ONLY pro sports team, the Kings. The Raiders, 49ers, whomever will never get the equal number of die hard fans.

I still think the NBA will always prefer a market like Portland, OKC, San Antonio, etc. Pink and I disagree on the reasons why they do. Maybe Sacramento's a poor choice to illustrate that belief (even though I still believe its a one-horse market)?

No, it does make sense. I just think the whole aspect of "diehard fans" amounts to more civic and political pressure to get buildings, but that the other teams seeing more support might mean that more revenue from TV, merchandise, etc., is going to the other leagues from Sacramento rather than to the NBA, while subsidy for buildings and gate revenues might favor the smaller markets (right now I believe both football teams have more season ticket holders in Sac than the Kings do, but in general, I think gate revenues favor the hometown team). The thing is, gate revenues from the regular joes aren't a primary focus of any of the leagues (besides the NHL still), which is why I keep coming back to the public subsidies. I mean, think how much money is gifted from cities to a league's owners by putting $300m+ into a building that's going to increase revenue streams on-site far more than it's going to add to the local economy. If owners' only big expenditures are payroll and the initial lump sum of buying the team, and they basically get a free ride for buildings, life's a piece of cake.

pinksheets wrote:I don't quite agree with your take, pe. It's not that the NBA wants small markets because they are one horse towns. They want small markets that are one horse towns (because they're small markets) because those are the cities they can most hold hostage in exchange for huge public funds. You want to lose your only sports team? You want us to scar your civic pride a bit and head to a "real" city? Oh, we'll do it, bitches.

It's a horrible business model that I think is unsustainable. It's parasitic, which means moving from city to city, sucking up public money until they're sick of it, then moving onto the next. Eventually you'll run out of reasonable targets or they'll be enough cities say "hell no" that the NBA is going to lose a huge source of cash influx and foundation building (through gifting arenas). They'll have shaky reputations in big markets who make sense simply because of the money and audience in the market, and be stuck in the small towns that don't have the advertising revenues, the spending power, or local economics that can push money into their league through traditional, stable means.

Throwdown wrote:I don't know if it'll be relocation or expansion, I do believe we will have a team in the next 2 years though.

Milwaukee isn't as easy as people are trying to make it seem, 6 year lease, owner is pretty adamant about not wanting the team to go to an out of towner. Charlotte is about to change their name back to the Hornets, they have a world class arena already, it might just be a case of the Bobcats brand not catching on.

Who else is there? We aren't getting the Pacers, and they aren't going to move a team from Atlanta to Seattle, Memphis just got a new owner who seems committed to to staying there, Minnesota already said no, I'm running out of teams that would be even remotely possible.

Rebranding is a desperation move for a crap franchise. Isn't that Michal's team? Pink is right - they ain't selling to HBN

re: the PP debate - even if there's fifty teams in a market, if it's a huge market like LA there's the POTENTIAL revenue stream if the team gets good--not just in ticket sales either. Big markets are just better. The Stern model is asinine and inverse logical - the dude does it for evil power-grasping thrills, not for the good of the NBA--the NBA grew under the dwarf midget's watch, it is true, but it would be much bigger and better with even an adequet, non-evil commissioner.P.S. Yeah I know I misspelled adequiet. What's yror point?

Well lets say this, Seattle and Portland were not mega metropolis's when we both originally got our teams, we have since grown, I wanna say that Seattle was like in the 40's back then and Portland farther yet as far as media markets go. That was in the late 60's. So there were many other locations of higher population density at that time. We both still got teams though. Granted the ABA was trying to get a foothold as well so some of the other markets were already competing then.

To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!! Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. Member of the 38 club.

Love the group, but IMHO they are playing too nice! I think the only language the clowns in the NBA understand would be getting their asses sued off! If the Sonics come back before the MOU runs out then I'm wrong... Just see Seattle being used as a pawn for the next 10 years by the twits in the NBA. Hope I'm dead wrong.......

I think if they thought that was the case they'd be going that route. They probably have a better idea of what's going on than us. I'd have backed going nuclear, but I also just trust that they're moving int he right direction.

pinksheets wrote:I think if they thought that was the case they'd be going that route. They probably have a better idea of what's going on than us. I'd have backed going nuclear, but I also just trust that they're moving int he right direction.

But you'd have to add two teams, meaning more dilution and potentially a weak East Coast market to keep things even.

A. Dilution is not a serious concern. See above.

B. The league absolutely does not have to expand by two teams. The NBA has regularly had spans with an odd number of teams, including from 1970-74 (17 teams) and from 1980 (when expansion to Dallas brought the league to 23 teams) through 2004 (when the Bobcats made it 30). During that span, the league added teams in twos and fours when adding them as single teams or in threes would have given the NBA conference balance. Guess what: the NBA traditionally hasn't cared too deeply about conference balance!

So it's totally reasonable to believe that the NBA could expand only to Seattle, giving the West 16 teams, and likely giving the Northwest Division a sixth team.